How an organization can oppose such a thing based on the belief that it "may impact union contractual items" is beyond me. But it does demonstrate that I am correct in despising them. Matter of fact, someone/something which would willingly endanger my child due to a concern over someone's "union contract" makes them my enemy. And I don't feel bad about it at all.

It’s such an obviously good idea that Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. House agree on it, and passed legislation by a simple voice vote to make it the law.

But there’s one group who thinks this is a bad idea: leaders of our nation’s teachers unions.

“The bill has run into objections from major teachers’ unions like the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. In letters to lawmakers, their criticisms included concerns that the measure might jeopardize workers’ protections under union contracts,” the Associated Press reports.

In other words, the teachers unions are more concerned with the contractual “protections” afforded murderers and rapists than protecting students from these vile monsters. The NEA is also reportedly concerned that because minorities make up a disproportionately high percentage of criminals, they’d be disproportionately impacted by the bill.

The House-approved legislation would ensure “every school employee, from the cafeteria workers to the administrators, to janitors to the teachers, principals and librarians, that every one (including school contractors)” is screened through the FBI fingerprint identification system and the national sex offender registry, Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Ind., told the AP.

“The bill would forbid public schools to employ people convicted of crimes against children including pornography, or of felonies including murder, rape, spousal abuse or kidnapping. It would bar school districts and state education agencies from transferring workers who have engaged in sexual misconduct with minors to another location,” the news service reports.

The legislation includes an appeal process for school employees, but they would be prevented from continuing work during an appeal.

Isn’t this all just common sense? How could anyone oppose such legislation? And what does it say about union leaders who are opposed?

On the upside there was agreement on something across party lines. The teachers Unions is correct about losing protection for some employees. Their problem as mentioned is that they appear to be protecting criminals instead of children which is reprehensible.

However, my bigger problem with these stories are these things are short term fixes. We need a long term solution.

If we are letting people out of jail that categorically cannot be trusted, STOP LETTING THEM THE OUT OF JAIL!!!!!!!!!

There should be no murderers, kidnappers, and rapists applying for jobs outside of jobs inside prisons.

Throwing in pornographers is out of place. First, how do you even define that. Second, are there really convicted pornographers out there? We need to empower the high-paid administrators to use their judgment and hold them responsible when they don't or use it poorly. Not prescriptive non-sense like this.

Spouse abuse? So beat your girl/boyfriend and you can still work at school, but marry her first and then you can't be trusted? More feel good than rational. Armed robbers are in but a woman that gets fed up and beats the hell out of her dumbass drunk husband is out

What about DUIs? Shoplifting? Bar fights? Where do you draw the line?

I have a problem with people that have paid their debt to society being outcasts for life. Those that should be, should never get out. Those that should not, should be give the opportunity to live their lives. Recently released should have limits on what jobs they get. If you have a DUI or other serious driving related convictions, then don't apply to be a bus driver, but why not a janitor? This judgment is subjective, which is why administrators are needed. It seems that the more they make. The less they think. It makes no sense.

The federal government should not be setting these rules. It should be unconstitutional for them to even do so. However, I don't want to see the state legislatures doing this either. I want them to make sure that there are no convicted murderers, rapists, and kidnappers walking the streets to apply for jobs. If they can't be trusted around kids, they should not be out. They will be around somebody's kids somewhere at sometime, so why on earth would we take that risk? Fix that to make all kids safer at all times and places and not this piecemeal nonsense.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell

I agree that once a debt is paid, it's paid. But to me, all that means is that they won't be "punished" for it again. It doesn't mean they get to act as if it never happened. An embezzler or con man shouldn't be allowed to work at a bank, if they don't want him there. Nor should a person who has demonstrated that they can't control their violence be allowed to work in a school.

WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.

assateague wrote:I agree that once a debt is paid, it's paid. But to me, all that means is that they won't be "punished" for it again. It doesn't mean they get to act as if it never happened. An embezzler or con man shouldn't be allowed to work at a bank, if they don't want him there.

I agree with that and said as much and it should not be illegal for the employer to use his judgment either way.

assateague wrote:Nor should a person who has demonstrated that they can't control their violence be allowed to work in a school.

A person who has demonstrated they cannot control their violence should not be allowed outside of prison until they demonstrate that they can control their violence. Is it OK for them to work with your wife? Is it OK for them to be at the store your kids frequent?

My point is that this stuff seems far more emotional than rational. Just like the silly mandatory workplace violence training I just took.

Of course, sadly it is practical like the sex offender registries. In my ideal world, there would be no need. There would be no one to register.

Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell